Charlatan

Reconmike... I think it is clear where your anger with Raider originates. And while I can't say that I speak for him I think you need to differentiate between an opinion on the military in general and what they are being used for in Iraq.

In general, defence is a good thing. Protect the borders, etc.

The disagreement falls on the issue of what exactly is happening in Iraq. Some, like yourself for example, think that invading Iraq was important to US national sercurity.

Others, like myself, see this as an uneccesary invasion of a sovreign country. As see from this point of view (right or wrong) it has little to do with "living in a free country".

Your arguement, as others have in this post, is really just another swipe suggesting that anyone who disagrees with the invasion of Iraq doesn't support the troops or is treasonous.

Raider's belief that blame should be placed directly on the individual soldiers shoulders, is another issue entirely and should probably be addressed as such... but I suppose kicking ass just gets the point that much faster

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

kutulu

My thoughts exactly. Now we even have threats.

stevo

I wouldn't blame tec for that, nor would I call it a threat.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

Hardknock

Well you know what? I felt insulted by his post claiming that someone can't express their opinion just becasue it dissents from the majority. That's what makes me so sick about this administration and everyone involved with it. You disagree with the government, and you're labeled as a traitor supporting the terrorists. This shit so needed to stop so long ago. They will keep using 9/11 as an excuse to do whatever they want while labeling real patroits who have the courage to question their government as traitors.

host

That works both ways, stevo. The TFP member who you are defending, clearly demonstrates how "he [she] hides behind a computer screen using the freedom of speech soldiers have sacrificed their lives for."

I have personally now, twice been put "on notice", that "i have not been reported to authorities". I have been personally informed, right on this thread,
"and you'd have been visited already. Your posts on this board certainly would satisfy the low standards of proof required to satisfy probable cause."

Reconsider who and what you are defending, stevo. What it is, wrenched away now by corrupt politicians and misguided and misinformed average citizens, that "soldiers have sacrificed their lives for."

I won't "chill out", stevo, and neither would you if you truly understood what is at stake here. If I "displease" moosenose, I run the risk that I'll be "visited",
maybe arrested, under a "gag" order, prohibiting me from even posting what has happened to me, to the rest of you. Hal will initially be compelled to turn over to moosenose's "professional" "three letter agency" contacts, my I.P.# and any other info that will facilitate my identification and further harrassment. Hal will also be "gagged"...prohibited from confirming or communicating that a "request" for info about me, has been made.

In moosenose's "Amerika", even librarians are intimidated enough to admit,

stevo

Thats your opinion and your entitled to it. Rdr is entitled to his as well. As well is reconmike. But as I stated before, it wasn't a differing opinion, it was a personal insult.
But oh well, lets try not to get any bans handed out today.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

roachboy

you know, this thread had the potential to be interesting---despite what i took to be a mistaken motive for starting it----it nonetheless could have been an interesting discussion.

but the posts from the lumpenconservatives have been so consistently and thoroughly appalling that i see no reason to continue.

good job, gentlemen: it is obvious that you do not appreciate "terrorism"--bogeyman of the moment--relativized and questioned.
it is obvious that you are not interested in thinking about the signifiers that order your politics.

were you to think about it, at the formal level red4ever's post was just a version of the same kind of move that the right has done since reagan--here a terrorist, there a freedom fighter---curious reactions from the lumpenconservatives, given that the post was situated in the context of a conversation about the arbitrariness of the term "terrorism"--but it appears that even the most rudimentary forms of attention to context are too much to expect from these folk.

better to react with bluster and threats.

quite a demonstration of a variety of reasons why people who operate outside the fantasyworld of right ideology consider that ideology to be dangerous--why the equation of populist conservatism and the fine legacy of the brownshirts keeps returning---you do your politics proud--making sure that no-one forgets the kind of thug mentality that underpins the otherwise arbitrary positions that comprise that political space is a kind of accidental public service.


seriously, this is about the most noxious display from the right that i have seen on this board since i have been participating in it.
unbelievable.
just unbelievable.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

stevo

really? maybe you're just having a bad day.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

host

My concern arises from my increasing chance of being "banned" by a much more imposing "enemy of freedom". Mein government!

zen_tom

I don't think we should paint the whole of the right with the opinions of someone like moosenose. There are other reasonable voices out there that still may have something interesting to say, and one bad apple does not have to spoil the whole bunch.

Charlatan

Seconded...

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

roachboy

yes yes, of course. mea culpa.
i thought that i was clear about what i was referring to.
because i referred to them as lumpenconservative---a derivative of lumpenproletariat from marx--it denotes what marx called the "sack of potatoes", those who follow whichever way the ideological wind blows, the followers, the footsoldiers...those who adhere to views without any particular evidence of reflexivity.........obviously not every conservative is like these gentlemen.

but then again, not every conservative would have reacted as they have.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

moosenose

Which part do you have a problem with? I seem to recall a recent muslim convert who was in the National Guard and got in trouble for talking in a chat room about how he supported the insurgents. I also recall a guy who suggested (not on the Internet, of course) that people should go to Pakistan and train for Jihad. He got life.

It's illegal to say certain things. It always has been. After all, what is fraud or perjury but codified unacceptable speech? Does that mean we're not free, because we can't defraud somebody with our speech? I don't think so.

moosenose

Would that be the same ACLU that is being investigated by the FBI?

Remember that lawyer in New York? I don't recall her name, but she was talking to her client, and then talking to his friends, and she too ended up in federal prison.

moosenose

Which explains why he's still President...

Oh, wait, you mean a majority of voters think you're wrong???

boatin

We'll use dictionary.com, since it's so handy:


Item one clearly is the physical act of sticking. Not appropriate. Item 3 is, I believe, not appropriate - there is no sign there is any planning going on.

Can I assume your issue is with #2? Still looks pretty shaky to me. Perhaps you are right. It would be interesting discussion. Imagine if you'd quoted the Constitution, and your specific point (if #2 is it). And then stated that it looks like treason to you.

Call me crazy, but that might have furthered the discussion. I'm sure it's more fun to be threatening and vague though. Threats and intimidation builds such a nicer TFP, don't you think?

zen_tom

moosnose, the part I have a problem with is the part that means someone can go to jail for expressing their beliefs.

Fraud(and perjury) is a deliberate attempt to profit by misleading someone. Speaking (and thus speech) is more than opening and closing one's mouth.

It may already be too late, and laws may be in place in your country that allow people to be sent to prison based on thier beliefs, but I would not expect you to be happy or proud of that. Secondly, if those laws are in place, isn't it rather ironic that the president who is so keen to impose freedom all around the world, is also presiding over a nation in which it is a crime to express one's views?

moosenose

Perjury is not a deliberate attempt to profit by misleading someone, but that's neither here nor there.

I have no problem with certain kinds of speech being criminal. For example, speech that is likely to cause an immediate breach of the peace is criminal, and I have no problem with that.

You can believe whatever you want in the US. You can say whatever you want in the US (there's no real prior restraint here.) But if you say something that breaks the law, you should expect to be punished for it.

BTW, where do you live where people can NOT be punished for their beliefs? Are you in Canada? If so, what's your position on Canada's hate speech legislation? Try telling the Holocaust-deniers in Canada that they are free to express their beliefs...

moosenose

Boatin, I don't even know if Raider is a US citizen or resident. There are others here who I am sure are not located in the US or US citizens. If Raider is not in the US, it wouldn't be a crime, would it?

zen_tom

And so in what way did Rdr4evr's post break the law? Here's what you quoted:

Quote:
This is quite obviously an opinion. In what way is it against US law to express your opinion?

boatin

Assuming that it IS a crime, you are certainly right. But that really is still the question. You seem sure, but that and $4.50 buys you a cup of coffee.

If he isn't a citizen, then you know there is no issue. If he IS a citizen, then you are still vague and threatening.



Here's an idea (related to my last post, in which you ignored the central idea/question): rather than write about Raider, why don't you write about the IDEAS/QUESTIONS at hand? I know, I know, it's nutty.

And no chance for threats and innuendos. Sorry, it's all I can offer.

zen_tom

No I'm not in Canada, and I know nothing about Canadian hate-speech legislation. I doubt anyone in Canada is locked away based on their beliefs. Frankly I don't see the point of the question. You either have freedom of speech, or you lock people up based on their opinions. What'll it be?

Charlatan

In Canada you *can* be charged with a hate crime. Convictions are rare and usually in extreme cases, such as Holocaust deniers and those who would incite violence upon others due to their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/41491.html

Hate Propaganda

Advocating genocide
318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Definition of "genocide"
(2) In this section, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,

(a) killing members of the group; or

(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

Consent
(3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Definition of "identifiable group"
(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin.

R.S., c. 11(1st Supp.), s. 1.

Public incitement of hatred
319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Defences
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Forfeiture
(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

Exemption from seizure of communication facilities
(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section.

Consent
(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Definitions
(7) In this section,

"communicating" «communiquer»
"communicating" includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means;

"identifiable group" «groupe identifiable»
"identifiable group" has the same meaning as in section 318;

"public place" «endroit public»
"public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied;

"statements" «déclarations»
"statements" includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

moosenose

I recall a case where an immigrant to Canada from Germany put up a Holocaust-denying website. IIRC, he was deported back to Germany and ended up in prison because he expressed his beliefs.

Charlatan

Actually Ernst Zundel was wanted in Germany as well, where Hollocaust denial is a crime.

Zundel was living in the USA when he was arrested and extradited to Canada, where he was tried and sent back to Germany.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

moosenose

The point is that there's no real place that I know of where absolute freedom of speech exists. Freedom of speech is indeed restricted EVERYWHERE in some manner. It's just a matter of by how much.

zen_tom

There's a difference between a hate crime and stating a belief. In the same way that fraud requires a criminal intent, so does incitement.

In stating one's view, one is not necessarily inciting violence. If someone asked the holocaust deniers what they believed in court, would the deniers be committing an offense by stating their opinions?

No, the offence is the incitement of violence, not the holding of the opinion.

moosenose

He couldn't have been extradited to Canada unless he had committed a crime there, yes?

zen_tom

So in what way did Rdr4evr's post break the law?

Charlatan

He was guilty of crimes under the Hate Crime Legislation which as zen_tom rightly points out, is very different from simply expressing one's beliefs.

This legislation is not used lightly or frequently. You have to be a considerable hate monger to be convicted under this law.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

moosenose

You're wrong. If somebody went into court in Canada and said "Your Honor, I believe everybody in "X" group should be killed", that WOULD be a crime, even though it's strictly a statement of personal belief.

moosenose

That sure as hell sounds like adhering to (or supporting) the enemy to me...He says they're brave, doing the right thing, and he commends them for attacking US forces in a time of war.

roachboy

moosenose:

your line of argument in this thread is wholly insane--no judge, anywhere, who took into account the context of this debate would accept your idiotic attempt to equate what red4ever said with shouting fire in a theater or anything like that.

you have nothing to say and i suspect you know as much.

all i see in it is some attempt to stifle debate.

and i am frankly amazed that this sort of nonsense is tolerated here.
a funny idea of mutual respect you have.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Hardknock

I think that the majority of voters were duped. They were lied to. And fear tatics were used in order to get them to vote for Bush. Need I remind you that during the entire campaign, the only three terms that came out of Bush's mouth were, 9/11, terriorism and the partoit act and how it needed to be renewed. No economic issues, no environmental issues, no health care issues, no education issues. Only things that would instill fear in the common citizen.

The right only knows how to use fear to get what they want. It's an old tatic and unfortunately, it always works since people seem to fall for it becasue they can't do their own research and believe the talking heads on the tube.

Hardknock

I can see where rdr is coming from. The iraqis are doing the exact same thing we would do if we were invaded by some foreign source. Your average joe would take up arms and fight against the invaders. You wanna report me to the FBI too moosenose?

Hardknock

Others have been banned for less I might add....

moosenose

Really? And you base that statement about "no judge, anywhere" upon?

What raider said is NOT the equivalent of "falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater". (And I do so wish people would include the "falsely" when they quote Holmes....because sometimes people have a duty to shout fire in a crowded theater, like when the theater is actually on fire...) His or her comments would not tend to pose an immediate danger of harm to anybody, which is where the whole "fire-theater" thing comes from. But that is NOT the standard that would be used in trying somebody for violating Article 3 § 3 of the US Constitution. The standard would be "do the statements qualify as "adhering to the enemy"", that is, providing them with moral support. It's a "strict liability" offense...

roachboy

try it--you'll be made a fool of so fast your head will spin.
you got nothing, there is no basis for even saying the nonsense you are posting much less pretending that anything is actionable.
just stop--your arguments are a joke, they are transparently nothing more or less than an attempt to intimidate.

funny though--scratch a lumpenconservative, find a thug.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

kutulu

Sorry, but this is America, not Canada.

moosenose

Really? So Bush never mentioned Social Security during the campaign? He didnt talk about public education during the campaign? He didn't talk about tax cuts? He didn't talk about a constitutional amendment defining "marriage"? He didn't talk about tort reform? He didn't talk about increased VA funding? He didn't talk about illegal immigration? The list goes on and on.

You can delude yourself into thinking anything you like. The fact is that Bush kicked Kerry's ass, and it was KERRY who was constantly portraying himself as a "hawk"...to quote JibJab: "And I've got THREE Purple Hearts!"